Q&A Forums

Attic and Crawlspace Proposed Code Changes Post New Topic | Post Reply

Author	Comments
jimcoler Posted: Apr 22, 2009 08:06 AM	Attic and Crawlspace Proposed Code Changes As is commonly discussed on this forum, Fire codes in Attic and Crawlspaces regarding foam are a common issue. Please read the below information and take action so we can keep this industry moving forward instead of moving backward with outrageous prices with little to no added value to the consumer. ************** It is my understanding that the SPFA has established a committee to address foam in attics and crawlspaces with regards to fire safety. I was excited to hear this since this is commonly a confusing issue for customers, architects, engineers and code officials. I am concerned about what I’m hearing about the direction of this committee, that the testing is not related to real life circumstances or realistic fire load conditions and I hear rumors that this is due to political and personal agendas being pursued under the guise of this committee. This would be companies that have foams that do not meet the current SwRI Attic and Crawlspace test and or companies that produce ignition barrier coatings. I urge you to not let this committee be directed by political or personal interests and direct the committee to re-evaluate and revise the testing criteria to reflect real life circumstances. Common comparable circumstances would be an attic with exposed roof rafters/trusses and exposed fiberglass insulation on the floor. The testing pass/fail criteria should be based on how it directly affects the three goals of the fire service industry; Occupant Life Safety, Rescuer Life Safety, and Property Preservation (fire extension). As the Assistant Chief of a local volunteer fire department, I would feel more comfortable responding to a building even with exposed ASTM E84- class I rated foam than I would with fiberglass insulation due to the slowed fire extension, superior compartmentalization of areas, and added sacrificial surface protecting the structural elements of the building. Some fire safety data shows a decrease in attic fires since installing foam exposed in attics. The codes do not currently compensate for thermo-set (does not melt or drip) and thermo-form plastic foams (melt and drip) and the extremely different fire characteristics between them. It also does not account for the fire retardancy or fuel contribution of the blowing agents. Some of the older foams were highly flammable partly due to the highly flammable blowing agents where many newer foams are water blown which release Carbon Dioxide (also used in fire extinguishers). The code only states, “All plastic foam” which totally negates performance characteristics of a product. This would be like saying all wood is good for structural building, when you wouldn’t want to build a house out balsam wood. The codes should be changed to reflect true product performance characteristics and not have blanket statements negating product performance characteristics. This is how the SPFA can help rather than pushing a personal agenda. I personally have experience with a situation where the foam minimized fire damage and self extinguished within a cathedral ceiling with wiring which was struck by lightning. The fire damaged areas we only about 1’x 3’ along the wire and it was already extinguished when the fire department personnel tore open the drywall it was already out. The impact of the proposed testing from this committee would be extremely damaging to the spray foam industry and add no value to the end consumers. It would add costs in excess of $1.50/square foot which gets passed down to the end consumers and results in less foam installs and less foam sold. The fiberglass manufacturers, ignition barrier coating manufacturers, and manufacturers of inferior fire rated spray foam are the only benefiting parties from this proposal which could result in a damaging code change. The SPFA will not be viewed as a leader in the industry, but as another channel/organization for special interest groups to drive their objective through the system. It is disturbing and discouraging to see a committee within SPFA, which is supposed to be objective and looking out for the interest of the industry, succumb to special interest groups with political or financial motivations. It is my understanding that the direction of this committee and their intended actions have not been finalized or approved by the SPFA. You are responsible for the final outcome of this committee and can direct this towards a beneficial solution for consumers and spray foam contractor and I urge you to act now before it goes any further. Please contact me to let me know your decision and the direction of the task force committee. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jim Coler
Gerry Wagoner Posted: Apr 27, 2009 02:10 PM	I am opposed to mandatory ignition barriers on spray foam in attics and/or crawlspaces. Thanks for the topic suggestion. oG
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Apr 27, 2009 02:27 PM	Don't forget to tell other contractors (even your conpetitors) about expressing their disagreement to this. The more we can get to send an email of dissatisfaction, the more they should be listening to us and recognize what we have to say. Thanks for sending your support!
Posted: May 03, 2009 12:51 PM	Jim, I agree with you on multiple levels of your message. But overall, shouldn't the SPF manufacturers who have scientists that test their product and have unlimited resources put their two cents into this? I started with Bay Systems North America turn key rig and all. I saw and met their scientists and their lab. They do "Real World" tests for applications. Bayer Company has, in my view, the best people to give the best evaluation. I submit there are other manufacturers out there that could also give their "Real World" lab test results to give an overall guideline for the best direction for this Crawlspace code.
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: May 03, 2009 08:30 PM	Bay systems would be a great company to fund and even conduct the work if it was done under the supervision of an objective third party. But that isn't what the issue is. The issue is that Bay Systems is one of the ones on the committee who "Voted" to proceed with this un-realistic fire test. Why? Well, I can't answer for them specifically, but let's look at the options. Doesn't Bay Systems also make intumescent coatings? - Answer- Yes! Does their foam currently meets the swRI 99-02 Attic and Crawlspace Test? Answer- No (not that I'm aware of). So, what do they have to gain by pushing the vote towards the requirement of an intumescent coating. The number one reason is so they could sell more of their product (both foam and coatings). So,let's use the analogy of Guns. If you left the responsibility of the hen house up to a committee of foxes, what plan do you think they would come up with for the Hens and Chickens? It would be a plan to benefit themselves. Do you think the Hens would have something to say about their "plan"? Yes, this plan would be voted on but the representation would be Biased! This is much like this committee. It originally was supposed to be good representation from all but seems to have gotten overrun by the larger manufacturers who have an agenda to push through. There were at least three companies on board originally - committed to come up with a reasonable plan. As the plan wnet the way of a politcial agenda, these three companies expressed their disapproval and this was ignored. The committee proceeded against the wishes of three manufacturers who stated the test is unreasonable, unfair and not representative of real life circumstances. These three companies who were on the committee have gone on record against the actions of this committee and it didn't matter. Why, well, let's look at the funding. Who funded the most for this committee? It was the larger manufacturers who put more money in so their desires were catered to. Kurt from SPFA argued that it was a democratic process. I agreed that it was but stated it was democratic from a biased committee. If you have a bunch of people who claim to have seen UFOs vote on whether UFOs exist or not, thet're going to "vote" Yes, in a democratic process, but that doesn't mean it's true - And the opinion and vote of the rest of society was ignored. So go back to them and ask them if they are for it or against it and ask them to put their opinion in writing to the SPFA and copy you on it. Besides that, most of these people are NOT fire experts. So if you were planning a trip in the Space Shuttle, would you leave it up to NON engineers or Rocket Scientists to verify that you'll have a safe trip? I urge you to get involved and get all of your suppliers involved. If you ask enough questions and follow the money trail, then sooner or later you should be able to see who's playing a personal agrnda and who's not.
Michael Fusco Posted: May 24, 2009 09:40 AM	Jim...don't let this die. It is far too important.
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: May 25, 2009 10:07 PM	Just so everyone knows, I'm not letting this die and I've made arrangements to be at the ICC Code hearings on June 3rd when this portion of the code will be debated. It seems through some of my discussions about this that this is not a shut and closed case. The SPFA and ones supporting their proposal would like us to believe that this is a done deal, but it's not. Yes, there is a fire expert supporting the SPFA proposal, but there is also one with many years experience not supporting it. From what I hear this would be a good ICC Code hearing to attend because of the controversy surrounding this issue. Rest assured, If given the opportunity (as I expect we will be) I will voioce our opposition to this proposal and request a more realistic approach be developed without this being approved. I would appreciate your prayer and support as I don't expect this to go down easy. If you can email me with a letter of support and anyone else that wants to support our cause, i'd love to walk in there with a stack of letters of opposition from contractors. So, when Kurt tells me again that I'm the only contractor who think this will harm our business, I have a stack of your voices to prove him otherwise. Please send me you letters of support as soon as possible. I would need them by no later than noon June 1st to be able to print and use them if given the opportunity. jim@coler.com Thanks, Jim Coler www.coler.com
JohnPeters Posted: May 26, 2009 08:48 AM	I will be in an attic slinging foam right around the time that you will be at the hearings. As I will undoubtedly be drenched in sweat and filled with delusional thoughts - I will be thinking of you and the fight ahead. Thoughts and prayers, jp